NITIN VIJAY,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

section 68 of\nthe Act is correct and required to be sustained.\n9. In the rejoinder, the Id. AR of the assessee stated that the principles\nof probabilities falls enquiry of the assessee, the assessee has received\nadvances and notices issued in majority of the cases have been served\nand replies were also received and therefore, the decision

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

89, 90, 91 seized, said advances were renewed from time to time and fixed rate of interest were paid on it which itself proves that the amount taken is not advances taken against agricultural land but cash loan taken on interest through loan broker. (vi) Furthermore, the assessee vide letter dated 16/11/2017 and again by letter dated 18/12/2017 was asked

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

89, 90, 91 seized, said advances were renewed from time to time and fixed rate of interest were paid on it which itself proves that the amount taken is not advances taken against agricultural land but cash loan taken on interest through loan broker. (vi) Furthermore, the assessee vide letter dated 16/11/2017 and again by letter dated 18/12/2017 was asked

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

89, 90, 91 seized, said advances were renewed from time to time and fixed rate of interest were paid on it which itself proves that the amount taken is not advances taken against agricultural land but cash loan taken on interest through loan broker. (vi) Furthermore, the assessee vide letter dated 16/11/2017 and again by letter dated 18/12/2017 was asked

SHRI BABU LAL DATA,ALWAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

89, 90, 91 seized, said advances were renewed from time to time and fixed rate of interest were paid on it which itself proves that the amount taken is not advances taken against agricultural land but cash loan taken on interest through loan broker. (vi) Furthermore, the assessee vide letter dated 16/11/2017 and again by letter dated 18/12/2017 was asked

SANDEEP SETHI ,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

89,05,480, and also accepted by the lower authorities, following submissions are made:- A. Invocation of Section 68

RAJIV NIGOTIYA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

89,05,480, and also accepted by the lower authorities, following submissions are made:- A. Invocation of Section 68

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

89. Regard must also be had to the fact that an Assessing Unit of the NFAC derives no authority or jurisdiction till such time as a case is randomly allocated to it and which triggers the assessment process in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 1448. The evaluation of data and Information would indubitably precede the actual process

RADHAKISHNA BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

89. Regard must also be had to the fact that an Assessing Unit of the NFAC derives no authority or jurisdiction till such time as a case is randomly allocated to it and which triggers the assessment process in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 1448. The evaluation of data and Information would indubitably precede the actual process

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

section 68 of the 51 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. Act that will amount to double taxation once as sales and again as unexplained cash credit which is against the principles of taxation. Assessee was having only one source of income from trading in beedi, tea power and pan masala and therefore provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

section 68 and added it\nto income of assessee On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted addition\nOn revenue's appeal to Tribunal, assessee showed that 111 deposits of Rs.\n19,000/- each in cash were made in bank account of 'D' Ltd. which were converted\ninto drafts and in this manner 'D' Ltd. subscribed to share application of assessee\ncompany

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , JAIPUR vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 143(2) of Income Tax Act 1961 was issued on 09-08-2018. The assessee deposited Rs. 1,41,32,000/- in demonetized currency during the demonetization period 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The AO made the addition of Rs. 1,41,32,000/- and the assessment of the assessee was completed by AO vide her order dated

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises

M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises

DCIT, CC-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S. ROYAL JEWELLERS, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

68 of the I.T. Act and taxed @ 30% as per provision of section 115BBE of the I.T. Act.” Further, it is submitted that the entire additions have been made by ld.AO on the basis of entries found noted in the seized documents found as a result of search from the M/s Royal Jewellers vs. DCIT business premises